Metroliner Wheels Up Landing YBBN

[jbr76]

Metroliner on a test flight made a wheels up landing at YBBN a couple of hours ago.

Landed on RWY19, 2 POB, All ok.

RWY19/01 NAVBL until further notice. Intl Aircraft inbound to YBBN most likely to divert to alternate airports due RWY closed.

Aircraft still located on RWY awaiting salvage crane.

No further information at this stage ...

[Dick Smyth]

Uzw or Uzs ?

[Jabawocky]

All back to normal now. As normal as it gets.

Imagine what it will be like when 14/32 gets closed in a few months and this sort of thing happens during peak hour:uhoh:

[Capt Claret]

You can't be serious that they've closed the runway, and aircraft are diverting!

For years I've been told they'll bulldoze the wreck, or I can land over it, or land on a taxiway, so therefore don't need enough fuel for plan-B.

Shocked, I am :oh:

[beaver_rotate]

Sorry Claret,

Was it a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 to which you received for 'commercial awareness'?? :yuk::=

[VH-FTS]

It wasn't a test flight. Don't start that speculation before news.com start reading this forum.

[VH-FTS]

Light plane landed on its undercarriage at 2.30am
Investigation is taking place, closing the runway
No one was injured in the incident at Brisbane airport


Read more: Light plane belly-flops at Brisbane Airport, closing main runway, expect delays | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/light-plane-belly-flops-at-brisbane-airport-closing-main-runway-expect-delays/story-e6frfq7r-1226271322908#ixzz1mOYTUc6r)

Anyone notice anything wrong already with the 'facts' above?

[MACH082]

Very strange.

A metro has a very good undercarriage and backup system. You'd be hard pressed to have it jam up that is for sure.

Once you release the uplocks it uses gravity and air loads to extend and lock. You rarely even need the hand pump except to place some hydraulic pressure in the line.

[TBM-Legend]

UZA straight out of maintenance..

[rioncentu]

Hmm lets' see

"Light plane"

"landed on its undercarriage"?



I haven't read "Cessna" yet..:ugh:


I read one comment on the Courier Mail site - "Why wasn't the spare runway near the sea used for this little plane?":ok:

[osmosis]

Incredibly neither of the two pilots was injured.

in·cred·i·ble   [in-kred-uh-buhl] adjective
1. so extraordinary as to seem impossible
2. not credible; hard to believe; unbelievable

[601]

"Why wasn't the spare runway near the sea used for this little plane?"

Good question. If it was a planned gear-up landing someone should be providing an answer as to why 14 was not used.

If it was not a planned gear-up landing, well ...........

[Capt Claret]

If it was a planned gear-up landing someone should be providing an answer as to why 14 was not used.

Maybe the conditions were not conducive to using 14/32?

[eternity]

601,


I have used RWY 14 before and if my wheels were broken there is no way that I would conduct a wheels up on RWY 14 in a Q400 if a much bigger (and wider) RWY was available next to it.

Granted the 'deathpencil' is a bit smaller than the 400, but in the same situation I would be demanding 01/19 over 14/32.

A much bigger RWY, a much wider RWY - therefore a safer RWY for a wheels up. I'll be damned if Im going to compromise the safety of myself and others on board (more than it is already), just for the convenience of other inbound aircraft when Amberley and Gold Coast are only a few mins away for them.

Good decision by the pilot to use 01/19 in my opinion.


Eternity.

[VH-FTS]

No flaps, no gear in the middle of the night on the smaller runway - you're kidding yourself thinking runway 14 should have been used.

[KRUSTY 34]

Why? Worried about an overrun?

Flack jacket on! :}

[knightflyer]

Krusty, maybe that should be overslide.

[Wally Mk2]

Pilots call as to which rwy to use but unless the prevailing winds where way off the mark for rwy 14 surely 14 would have been long enuf for a planed slide along the black stuff.


'FTS' yeah I too noticed the odd comment..."Light plane landed on it's U/C at 2:30 am" ........if it had done just that then we'd have zip to talk about here:)


Wmk2

[megle2]

Dents polished out and back in service tomorrow?

[Worrals in the wilds]

Toll polish stuff? :E:}
Seriously, glad they're okay. Must have been a bit hair raising at the time!
For years I've been told they'll bulldoze the wreckYou'd probably end up being thrown into a gulag by the ATSB for hindering an investigation. At least this would protect you from the operator's insurer who also would be hunting you down.

The days of dealing with unserviceable aircraft on the runway by chucking a rope around the nose wheel and hauling them off with a tractor are long gone.

[BPA]

Picture on the ATSB site

[VH-XXX]

I've downloaded, resized and uploaded the photo to make it display better here.

Photo from www.atsb.gov.au (http://www.atsb.gov.au)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/toll.jpg

[VH-FTS]

The AFM for the Metro calls for the props to be feathered prior to a wheels up landing with all wheels retracted. Wasn't sure if that happened or not last night, but the photo confirms the feathering, therefore the crew would have had a handful landing and shutting down both engines. Single pilot ops would have made it harder - good two were on board, even if one was under training.

No gear, no flaps and no prop drag - would have been a decent float, definitely would have taken the longer runway myself as well. Wonder if there were any problems opening the cabin door? Hope the crash axe was ready!

[The Green Goblin]

Breaks my heart to see the old girl like that :(

Long live the mighty metro!

[KRUSTY 34]

5 years and 2000 hours on type......

Nah! Good riddance!:E

Glad no-one was hurt all the same. Good job boys.:ok:

[717tech]

A post maintenance test flight at 2am??

Sad to see it in that state!

[Worrals in the wilds]

A post maintenance test flight at 2am??Rust Never Sleeps :} (aplogies to Neil Young).
IIRC it's not that uncommon. A lot of maintenance at Brisbane is done at night.

[717tech]

Sure maintenance is completed at night.

I always thought maintenance flights (required post heavy maint) had to be flown during daylight hours.

[VH-FTS]

I seriously doubt it was a maintenance flight at that time of the night with that crew composition on board. Someone has their wires crossed. More likely a freight run from Sydney.

And WTF did Tower say an ambulance was on standby, clear to land? That's the last thing you want to be told at that stage.

[gav_20022002]

Is that the the one that was still in the old MacAir scheme and hadn't had the Toll paint job done yet?

And fair enough if the book says both props feathered, i remember a while ago there was a good discussion on here about feathered or un-feathered for wheels up landings and though the general consensus was on water go feathered and on a hard surface keep then un-feathered so the tips bend/break and don't dig in.

(not looking for abuse or mud slinging - just an observation)

[Worrals in the wilds]

It's certainly about the right time for a freighter, but the initial ATSB investigation reports it as a maintenance flight.
Investigation: AO-2012-024 - Wheels-up landing - Fairchild SA227-AT (Metro), VH-UZA, Brisbane Airport, 15 February 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-024.aspx)
And WTF did Tower say an ambulance was on standby, clear to land? That's the last thing you want to be told at that stage. I hear what you're saying, but maybe they had asked for one. Brisbane gets remarkably few incidents given its size, it was 3am, maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time. The trouble with following along with the American Hype Media thing and putting radio communications on the telly is that everyone (myself included:O) can ponder over them at leisure and pull apart the decisions and radio calls individuals had to make in an instant. Not having a go, just saying...I doubt there's been an aviation incident yet without everyone involved saying to themselves afterwards, 'well, I could have done that better if I'd had a dress rehearsal...'

What happens, happens. These days, the thought of media scrutiny after the event scares a lot of frontline people more than the potential event itself. :(

[BPA]

Mate from Toll also says it was a test flight.

[jbr76]

I seriously doubt it was a maintenance flight at that time of the night with that crew composition on board. Someone has their wires crossed. More likely a freight run from Sydney.

It was a test flight post maintenance .. well documented now.

And WTF did Tower say an ambulance was on standby, clear to land? That's the last thing you want to be told at that stage.

The pilot declared an emergency. That involved the dispatching of the ARFF, and also having an ambulance there in-case. I think that is just standard procedure?

[Centaurus]

These days, the thought of media scrutiny after the event scares a lot of frontline people more than the potential event itself.

And unfortunately that includes the police who are immediately hounded by the media if they chase a drunken driver and he runs a red light killing someone in the process. There is media outrage about a drunk going through a red light at 150 km/hour - but police brutality in chasing a poor innocent drunk who inadvertently killed a couple of pedestrians, is a real headline scoop for a cub reporter:ugh:

[18-Wheeler]

I'm very curious as to why the gear wouldn't come down.
As mentioned earlier they are very simple and maybe the reason is that one main gear wouldn't come down so the Captain elected to land with all the wheels up ... ? I can't remember the procedure for them in that case but it might be better to go for no wheels rather than the nose and one main.
From much earlier, my thoughts on Metros - http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/390968-aircraft-you-love-hate-fly-2.html#post5229411

[F.Nose]

For years I've been told they'll bulldoze the wreck

Yep, I've seen those bulldozers lined up at every airport just itching to get out there and push wrecks off the runway. :confused: :hmm:

[KRUSTY 34]

AIRPORT the movie circa 1970.

Or were they snowplows?

[Metro man]

Looks very like a write off to me. I remember reading about a Metro which retracted the wheels while parked in the bay and ended up as scrap, beyond economic repair. This one is obviously far worse.

Sad to see the old thing like that, I spent many nights in her.:(

[Avturbound]

Has anyone been able to track down the Live ATC from this flight? :hmm:

[forever flying]

Has anyone been able to track down the Live ATC from this flight?

The YBBN TWR/SMC feed has been down for about a month.

[bentleg]

Webtrak (http://webtrak.bksv.com/bne)shows TFX141 doing airwork from 0128 to 0230 local. Looks like he did a couple of trips out over the bay and a couple of circuits before landing. There is a TFX arrival from BK just before 141 lands.

[Dream Land]

but the photo confirms the feathering Really, maybe you are looking at a different photo than I am. :ugh:

[VH-FTS]

Do you not know what a feathered prop looks like?

[Arnold E]

eally, maybe you are looking at a different photo than I am

Maybe you are looking at a different photo than I am, coz it looks featherd to me.:rolleyes:

[coarsepitch]

That prop is most definitely feathered...

[TBM-Legend]

Problem with a gear-up landing with a Metro can be the main spar. The lower cap can get ground down a bit...if it's bad then a 'new' or other wing is the answer.

[BPA]

One Metro flying in Australia had a wheels up in NZ (Eagle), so anything is possible.

[Roving Tech]

The Metro that did the landing at Hamilton in NZ broke the L/H dragbrace so the gear was partially sticking out on that side. From memory the l/h flap was hardly damaged but the keelsons were badly damaged and there was a large hole just aft of the cargo door.

[601]

Yep, I've seen those bulldozers lined up at every airport just itching to get out there and push wrecks off the runway

There used to be a BIG yellow one at Amberley. Probably a bit big to travel by road to BN

[Fris B. Fairing]

There used to be a BIG yellow one at Amberley.

I think it was called a Le Tourneau. I often wonder what happened to it.

http://www.qam.com.au/aircraft/canberra/A84-225-6.jpg

Rgds

[compressor stall]

Sad to see the old thing like that, I spent many nights in her.


I'm sure a few of us have made similar comments, and not about metros either.

[Ejector]

What's a typical VREF for a Metro 23 Flapless ?

[das Uber Soldat]

107 - 134 kts.

[Flight Level CHange]

"What's a typical VREF for a Metro 23 Flapless?"

UZA is/was a Metro 3. Pity it wasn't UZD!

[jas24zzk]

Fris,
is that the remains of a canberra? thought meteor at first tho..

[Fris B. Fairing]

jas

Wing and centre fuselage from a Canberra.

Rgds

[Ejector]

thank you for your replies

[Cat1234]

Often the emergency selector on the floor gets kicked into the wrong position when the locking pin falls out. The location is vulnerable to being kicked and the pip pin falls out allowing the selector to rotate towards emergency/hand pump selection. Gear then becomes slow to move up or down when driven by engine driven pumps relying on leakage past the partially closed valve. This is reasonably common on a Metro, I have seen this defect half dozen times in 15 years on Metros. Usually resolved when crew does check list and fully selects the above mentioned valve into the emergency position, then pumps the gear down.
I don't agree that the metro has a good extend/retract system, the roller bearings that run on the steel cams that control the gear are particularly vulnerable to collapsing and causing jams.

Looks like no one was hurt which is the main thing. A bit of aluminium, few rivets, it will be just like a new one:O

[Fly_by_wire]

but the photo confirms the feathering
Really, maybe you are looking at a different photo than I am.

hahhaaha, you really are in dreamland

[pcx]

The emergency gear selector will certainly cause problems if it is selected to emergency (forward or partly so) position. This valve is normally open to allow hydraulic fluid to return to the reservoir from the return end of the right nose and both inboard main actuators. These are the actuators that are pressurised by the emergency hand pump to provide positive pressure for the down cycle of the gear in the event of a normal extension system failure. If this valve is not in its normal position it will cause slow retraction and most likely prevent the gear from retracting fully.
However this should only happen with a normal retraction cycle.
My experience with this valve was that it had little effect on the extension cycle.
Does any one know for sure if the flaps were available? If so this would suggest that the hydraulic system was not the root cause of the failure of the gear to extend.
That is not to say that there was not an electrical control problem with the gear system.
However if that was the case then the emergency extension should have been capable of getting the gear down.
It seems to me that this crew must have been faced with two separate problems with the gear.
The other possibility is that they were unable to extend one of the main legs and then they correctly followed the flight manual procedure and landed gear up. Does any one know if this was the case?
With all due respect to Cat1234 the Metro gear system is almost bullet proof although I agree that his senario is possible.
The investigation and report will be really interesting and may point to some possible defects that are really just appearing. Maybe the age/hours of the Metro's really are beginning to catch up with them.

[VH-FTS]

If you look really closely at the photo you will see the flaps are down. I don't believe hydraulics had anything to do with it, and in any case, and as mentioned, the gear would have been able to free fall once the uplocks were released.

[jbr76]

to the pilot for a successful landing - it would have been a big challenge completing all of the above single pilot. I'm glad people have avoided so far the argument "props shouldn't have been feathered". In the Metro it isn't about preserving the engines or parts, rather about avoiding further damage to systems (which may cause a fire!) and its occupants.

Get your facts straight. There were 2 POB on that flight. Anyone who was either at the airport or listening in on 120.5 clearly knew there were 2 POB as it conveyed to the ARFF when the pilot was declaring an emergency to the ASA guy in the TWR. :ugh:

[aussie027]

A bit of aluminium, few rivets, it will be just like a new one.MMMMMMMAAAAAAATE,........ No worries,........that will buff right out!!! :E:E:E

Aimpoint, thanks for pasting the old manual extracts.

Propeller blades contacting the surface while turning under
power tend to disintegrate and throw shrapnel which may
puncture the fuselage. Blades contacting the surface when
feathered, or nearly feathered, will bend slightly and wear away
but most likely will not shatter and will aid in holding the wings
and nacelles off the runway.

Sorry though I cannot agree with that course of action.

There are many factors to consider in any given situation of course however the chances of rotating blades under idle power breaking up and throwing some shrapnel and the damage likely to be caused by that is far less than the catastrophic damage to the airframe that will occur if a feathered prop possibly digs into the ground if on a dirt strip (and it can even happen on a paved runway).
In that case the entire engine being ripped off its mounts and the airframe and possibly taking the wing with it and opening up the fuel tanks are far far worse.

Sadly this has happened many times before.
It thankfully didn't in this case though.

Airframes have been totally destroyed and lives lost by feathering before wheels up landings that otherwise would not have been had they let them hit and bend under idle power.
Often this has been done under the misguided belief by the pilot that he can minimize the damage to the aircraft, engines, props etc.
The cost of new props ,engines and some airframe repairs is usually less than a total write off.

There doesn't need to be a long debate ( or any at all, I don't want one) about what I have stated, some will agree, some simply wont. It is just my opinion based on things I have seen and heard from old veterans.

[morno]

So what you're saying, is that you should contravene what the flight manual says?

[VH-FTS]

That's ok, some people just know more than the manufacturer.

There are many factors to consider in any given situation of course however the chances of rotating blades under idle power breaking up and throwing some shrapnel and the damage likely to be caused by that is far less than the catastrophic damage to the airframe that will occur if a feathered prop possibly digs into the ground if on a dirt strip (and it can even happen on a paved runway).
In that case the entire engine being ripped off its mounts and the airframe and possibly taking the wing with it and opening up the fuel tanks are far far worse.

What a load of rubbish! That takes this week's pprune bullsh!t award.

[Jamair]

Propeller blades contacting the surface while turning under
power tend to disintegrate and throw shrapnel which may
puncture the fuselage.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p271/jamair_photos/EagleAirgearup.jpg

the chances of rotating blades under idle power breaking up and throwing some shrapnel

Aussie027 you may want to reconsider that one.

[aussie027]

Thanks for the insult FTS, much appreciated.
As I said my opinion based on what I have seen and been told, you are entitled to your own. (without insulting me)

No I am not claiming to know more than a manufacturer at all.
They have have stated an opinion re possible shrapnel damage and an opinion of a piloting technique to be used in a given circumstance. They did not mention the possible alternative I did in the manual.

I remember the B1900 photo, not the details of the incident.
Any casualties due shrapnel damage?? was that on runway or earth, cannot tell from pic??
The plane skidded to a halt intact.
As i stated if they were feathered and had "dug in" or however you want to describe it on either runway or earth the entire engines would have most likely been ripped from the airframe etc as I stated in previous post.
In the past going back since their invention most metal props have tended to bend back on impact and maybe shed a tip or blade rather than totally shatter and disintergrate as appears in that photo.

[Jamair]

IIRC it was a undercarriage shuttle valve failure so they flew to the main base (Wellington?) and burnt off some fuel before landing on the main (sealed) runway. The props shattered on contact with the ground and peppered the fuse / cabin with shrapnel. Someone else will know more, but I seem to recall the pre-crash prep included moving pax out of the seats that aligned with the props. There is a video of the event on utube.

Some aircraft POH include shutting down engines and feathering, some state shut down and don't feather, some don't shut down. I suspect that the people who build the aircraft make those determinations for reasons based on knowledge of the airframe and systems and I am inclined to follow their instructions. Also my liability insurance requires that I do.

[VH-FTS]

True, you're entitled to your opinion, but just how many feathered props have you seen "dig in"? I'm not an engineer but I reckon the blades would shear off before digging in on Tarmac and causing the wings to snap off.

[thorn bird]

Jams mate, not just your insurer.Reg's require adherance to flight manual procedures as well. Be a brave man standing in a coroners court trying to defend why he didnt adhere to manufacturers recommended procedures. Your rather lucky in NZ in that you have coherant, sensible, and understandable Regs, unlike OZ.
Anyone else out there experiencing bullying by CASA FOI's to depart from AFM procedures or manufacturers recommended, and insert their opions as to how it should be done??
Could be just me, but seems to be happening all the time now.
Its a bit worrying where you would stand legally if you aquiess to their demands and something went wrong. Would it give the insurance company an excuse not to pay out, and if they didnt would CASA cover your costs?

[Wally Mk2]

It's an interesting debate this one, feathered V rotating, shame that the subject can't be discussed rationally! I see little point in insults, that achieves nothing.

I do believe though that the general consensus is or was many years ago that feathering a prop/s just prior to shut down in these situations was considered more dangerous than leaving the prop spinning.
Some of the thinking behind this was the increased work load (actual reaching for the pitch lever/s & taking yr eyes off the flight path) right at a critical stage of the ldg & the sudden change in noise & performance in doing so even if only in an auditorial (made up word) form. Another was what has been suggested here already, a feathered prop has a far greater 'leverage' capability due to it being stronger presented to an obstruction edge on than a spinning one meaning it could dig in & cause sever damage & possible loss of airframe integrity before the event is over (A/C stopped).Obviously once the prop/s where/was feathered you have zero options but to land.
Both scenario's can have the same results, a prop/s that has disintegrated has lethal capabilities.
At the end of the day I personally would consider both options taking into account the surface to be used for landing, Emerg services avail, A/C type, prop to ground clearance with gear retracted and the type of fuel on board not to mention. the ease of escaping from the fuselage.
The POH may very well indeed suggest either way but they (the manufacturers) aren't in it !:)
Someone mentioned insurance recourse if the POH is not followed, damn litigation these days is more dangerous than the event itself!
So keep the debate alive guys but lets keep it civilized hey?:ok:


Wmk2

[Defenestrator]

You've hit the nail on the head Thorn Bird.

If there's a procedure for the emergency in the AFM/POH then follow it to the letter. If not the PIC will be a lamb to the slaughter in the eyes of the regulator and, worse, the insurance company. CASA approve checklists for this very reason. To 'encourage' crew to do it by the book. And rightfully so.

"....damn litigation these days is more dangerous than the event itself!".

How true.

D:ok:

[aussie027]

Wally, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALL MY POINTS SPELLED OUT EXACTLY. :ok:

You have expanded out exactly what I was thinking and tried to say briefly in a few paras without going into too much detail.
Everybody please reread Wally's post again carefully, word for word.
To emphasize a few points he stated very clearly,again--
The prop does have far greater strength and leverage edge on if it hits anything from soft ground to the pavement or any kind of resistance to forward motion. I have seen the wreckage from such an event on a number of occasions.

Once feathered your options are all gone, except to land.

A crew consideration of all relevant factors should be considered at the time.
Blind adherence to flight manual procedures or rather "recommendations" in this case is not always the safest or smartest course of action.

The manufactures are most certainly not aboard nor do they get to pay the price when / if it goes badly wrong.
Most aircraft have never actually been landed wheels up by the test pilots during type certification flights. Just like they haven't actually ditched them, nor is it required. (IIRC)
AFM procedures in many such cases are "recommended", based on best possible "guessed outcomes" in certain scenarios.

The engineers Best guesses/estimates" are certainly not always right by any stretch!!

(Eg NASA and Rockwell engineers, ALL of them, considering the Q of leading edge damage to shuttle wings in the event of being hit by foam on launch etc had decided that max damage would possibly be a few scratches a few mm deep IIRC from the investigation reporting at the time, NOT a massive hole as was the case in the actual event.
When they did fire a piece of foam at a flight certified leading edge panel, same as actually damaged one at whatever speed it was they were ALL STUNNED by the totally devastating results, a massive hole, compared to what they had "estimated".
As something I read just last week stated, "A series of actual tests is worth hundreds of expert opinions" )

I am not talking about trying to rewrite a "systems based procedure", eg what to do and what order to do certain items like in a specific electrical system problem for eg, thinking I know the system better than the engineers who designed it etc etc.
Nor saying I can just disregard an outright AFM WARNING such as -" Do not pull power levers below Flight Idle in flight or loss of the aircraft will result", such as has been discussed at length in the Dash 8 Crash thread.

ThornBird, Your statements also very true.
Too many lawyers and regulators too interested in litigation and prosecution after an accident instead of trying to learn from it and make whatever changes may be required to try and prevent a recurrence.

As I said before, my opinions, based on what I have seen and been told by far "older and bolder pilots" than me over the past 30 yrs. Just trying to put forward other views based on past tragic events so they hopefully may not be repeated by others who have never heard of them or even considered them.
Cheers all. :ok:

[18-Wheeler]

I hate to add to all this pedantry but an important point with any aeroplane fitted with Garrett TPE-331's is that at idle power the props are still doing the same rpm as at full power, there's just less torque happening.
The props also don't stop all that quickly when you pull the stop & feather knob due to the inertia of the big prop, gearbox, and engine.
Anyway, just follow the flight manual unless there's something unusual that would require a change to that procedure. And never rush .... unless you have no choice.

[aussie027]

Good points 18 Wheeler,
I am aware of that rpm issue too.:ok:

[Metro man]

Would different procedures apply with free turbine engines such as the PT6 compared to fixed shaft such as the TPE331 ?

Wouldn't the PT6 automatically feather when shutdown due to loss of oil pressure where as the TPE331 would have to be manually feathered ? My turboprop days where quite a while ago.

[VH-FTS]

I think this event's successful outcome of feathering the props at an appropriate time shows the manufacturer knows what it is talking about and pilots shouldn't rely on hearsay. The props didn't dig in or rip the plane to pieces. Different procedures for different aircraft of course, but we should never pretend to know more than Mr. Swearingen, Mr. Beechcraft etc., particularly during times of high stress.

Common sense applies though - it would have been unlikely for the pilot to have one prop already feathered and one ready to go if the weather was down to the minima.

[717tech]

A Kingair at Adelaide a while back did a wheels up with the engine feathered from memory.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

King Air Gear Up Landing - YouTube

Feathered


vs.

Beech 1900 aircraft wheels up landing - YouTube


Not feathered

Sorry bout the double up.....